Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a solemn occasion for Congress, when we come together to help people in our country who have suffered greatly in a way that will take a very long time to repair. What they expect of us is for us to perform our Federal role in a manner that would honor the social compact between the Federal Government and the people in need in our country.

I just heard on the news, and it is very sobering, that about 14 bodies were found at Memorial Hospital in New Orleans. Last night we heard that 30 bodies were found at the nursing home there as well. These, and many, many other deaths, are a sad tragedy for our country, for those people, of course, and for their families. So it would be my hope that we could send out the best possible message to the people of our country, that the Congress is coming together in the manner that we did after 9/11 to work in a nonpartisan way, a bipartisan way, to help meet their needs.

We had an opportunity to do that today. Sadly, it was a missed opportunity, because there was not a chance for amendment to the legislation that is on the floor now. The opportunity would have been there to subject FEMA to the scrutiny that it should be subjected to and to take action to correct the situation.

FEMA is the link between the Federal Government and the American people and the social compact. Unfortunately, this time it was a weak link. But there is something that can be done about it. It can be moved from the Department of Homeland Security to be an independent agency, as it was before; and it could have the proper leadership running FEMA.

I call upon the President to remove Michael Brown, the current director, and put in there a person of capability and credentials, perhaps someone from the military who knows organization and leadership, not someone who has absolutely no credentials for the job. This is important. It is not a question of criticizing, it is a question of changing the situation so that we can better meet the needs of the people who are suffering out there, and to do it before we have more unnecessary suffering.

I believe that we had two disasters: one, a natural one; the second one, a man-made disaster, a disaster made by the mistakes of FEMA following Hurricane Katrina.

This is something we can do immediately. This is something we can do immediately because here we are on the floor of Congress appropriating $50 billion to an agency which has a record of poor performance and a leadership without qualifications for the job. If you need any further evidence of the lack of performance, you need only look to last week.

So why could we not have had legislation come to the committee of jurisdiction, the committee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), where the considerable talent on both sides of the aisle could have subjected this request to scrutiny, how is this money being sent, what is the accountability of it?

This is $50 billion on top of $10.5 billion last week, which was brought to the floor with 5 minutes of debate on each side. That is all that was allowed before the bill was voted on. What are we afraid of? What are we afraid of? What is this Congress afraid of, that we will not allow our congressional committees to review the request, to establish accountability, to bring its expertise to bear on it?

So, obviously we are all going to vote for this. It is very, very important for people to understand that whatever our differences on how the money gets to them that those differences do not stand in the way of probably what will be a unanimous vote in this House. But it is a lot of money, and it is not the end. We will be having more requests from the administration, I am sure, and when we do, I hope that they will have the confidence in their request to send their request to the committee of jurisdiction, so that there can be appropriate congressional review, public comment and, again, the accountability and oversight that Congress has the responsibility to perform.

This is a democracy, the United States of America, the greatest democracy in the history of the world, and we are being governed by decree. The President decides on a figure, he sends it over, we do not even get a chance to look at it much before we are called upon to vote on it, again bypassing the committees of jurisdiction. I cannot imagine that is okay with the Committee on Appropriations. As a long-time member of the committee, I certainly hope it is not.

But the bigger issue, the bigger issue, is how we do the job for the American people. In order to do that job, there are so many people who are so much more important than Members of Congress in all of this: public employees, firefighters, police officers, health care professionals, public and private sector people out there, who are great heroes, great heroes. They saved lives, and some of them gave their lives to help others.

Responding to the Gospel of this past Sunday, the 23rd Sunday after Easter, the Gospel of Matthew about the commandment where Matthew says, ``the greatest of these is love, to love thy neighbor as thyself.'' We will be tested on these as we go ahead to see if we are smart enough to help people in a way that enables them to take control of their lives as soon as possible.

We have proposals the Democrats would have liked to offer today to cut the red tape, to improve the performance of FEMA, for there to be job creation in the region, to stop price gouging at the pump for gasoline and to have qualified, qualified, leadership in the roles.

So this is all a question of our judgment. Is the performance that we saw last week up to standard for us? I do not think so, because it did not meet the needs of the American people.

When we are little, I think it was high school, but now it is probably grade school, that children are reading John Donne, ``No Man is an Island,'' ``For Whom the Bell Tolls.'' But I thought of it so much as we see these lasting impressions of Mississippi, just obliterated on its coastline, and New Orleans inundated and Alabama so affected, and even parts of Florida, and the incredible generosity of all of the States receiving evacuees as guests in their State.

I think the optimism, the goodness, the compassion of the American people is the greatest force for good in our country, and God bless them for their goodness.

But, again, for whom the bell tolls, as we look at the tragedy in the gulf coast States, it is clear that we are seeing a mirror of our country; and if ever there was an occasion where the bell was tolling and we would ask the question for whom the bell tolls, it does toll for each and every one of us, because every one of those deaths does diminish, as the poem goes, every one of us.

So I hope the families in America know that the staggering numbers are just appalling to us, but we think of them one family at a time and want to make decisions that address their needs one family at a time.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will vote for this. I would hope, again, that future appropriations requests for Katrina will be presented in a timely fashion that will enable us to review them, to have some accountability from FEMA on how this money is spent, so that we can honor our oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution, yes, but to provide for the safety of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sorrow that I come to the floor of the House to remember my friend Erika Hills, who died tragically in an automobile accident in Napa Valley on August 17th. Today, her family and friends are gathering in Grace Cathedral in San Francisco to mourn her passing. I extend my deepest sympathy to her husband Austin, her sons Austin and Justin, her father Dr. Max Brunar, and her siblings Dieter Mascen and Eva Pongraz of Graz, Austria. Her death leaves a void in our lives but her bright light will remain in our hearts forever.

A home design expert, she had owned an antique shop in St. Helena, California. Her husband Austin Hills is a founder and partner in Napa Valley's Grgich Hills Cellar in Rutherford, California, and a descendent of the Hills Bros. Coffee family.

Erika's exuberance was contagious and elevated all the causes she championed. She and her husband were active supporters of the arts; the San Francisco Symphony, the San Francisco Opera and the Museum of Modem Art. She was generous with her time and her resources and dedicated herself to helping people less fortunate than she.

Erika served on numerous boards and volunteered in many charitable organizations. Her support extended from the cultural life of the San Francisco Bay Area to Roots of Peace, an international humanitarian organization that works to eradicate land mines, returning the land to agricultural use.

Most recently she served on the advisory council of the Land Trust of Napa County, Cal Performances in Berkeley, and the Seven Tepees Youth Program that helps underprivileged children with their education. She and her husband were founding members of the Copia center for wine and food in Napa.

Erika will be missed by all of us fortunate enough to have been touched by her life. Her joy, her generosity, as well as her concern for children around the world, will long be remembered by all who knew her.

I know I speak for all my constituents when I extend condolences to Austin, Austin Jr. and Justin for their heartbreaking loss. My thoughts and prayers and those of my husband Paul and the entire Pelosi family are with her loved ones at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, I join all of my colleagues in expressing our deepest condolences to the family of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. I mourn his loss, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for introducing this resolution.

I had the privilege yesterday of paying my respects to the Chief Justice as he lay in repose at the Great Hall. As I prayed, I thought of the great courage he displayed in the last few months, and his devotion to duty, even in the face of illness.

As a Nation, today we honor his memory and a lifetime of dedicated public service. Chief Justice Rehnquist was a man of great intellect and passion for the Supreme Court and its traditions, who was an outstanding leader and administrator of the judiciary. He was not only a student of history, an author of books on American history, but he also wrote chapters in our Nation's history as Chief Justice.

As a law clerk to a great Justice, Robert Jackson, he formed an early appreciation for the institution that he would serve in a long and distinguished career. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted, Chief Justice Rehnquist set an exemplary example as leader of the Court. His colleagues uniformly spoke of his fair and impartial leadership of their proceedings, and of his efforts to prevent disagreements from becoming personal.

His legacy is his steadfast and proud defense of an independent judiciary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said on Sunday: ``He regarded an independent judiciary as our country's hallmark and pride, and in his annual reports, he constantly urged Congress to safeguard that independence.''

I hope all of us in Congress will honor his legacy by preserving an independent judiciary. It is our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States--and that means protecting an independent judiciary free of manipulation and intimidation.

As the New York Times noted this morning, Chief Justice Rehnquist disapproved of recent Congressional attempts to ``intimidate individual judges, strip federal courts of jurisdiction to decide certain constitutional challenges, and otherwise undermine the constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances.'' In his last annual report, the Chief Justice wrote that ``A judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence.''

An independent judiciary has served for more than two centuries as the guardian of our constitutional liberties and as the words on the Supreme Court building so nobly state, has ensured ``equal justice under law.'' We must preserve an independent judiciary and honor his memory by doing so.

It is with sadness and respect that I extend my sympathies to Chief Justice Rehnquist's family and friends. I hope it is a comfort that so many people are praying for them at this sad time. He will long be remembered and missed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank him for his very strong statement. I wish to right off the bat associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, his remarks that he made in reserving the right to object. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who knows firsthand as do I what an impact a natural disaster is to a State and how important it is to hear right away from the Federal Government as to what our commitment is to recovery.

I remember, as I am sure the gentleman from California does, when the Loma Prieta Earthquake hit Northern California, it was such a shock and such a surprise as with our colleagues today. We could see in my area of San Francisco parts of the city burning, bridges down and impassable, the people in need, without adequate shelter and the rest. The San Francisco Bay Area, let me broaden it, Loma Prieta is in the southern part of the bay area, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) is reminding me.

Jamie Whitten came to the floor that day and said, Last night there was an earthquake in San Francisco. I immediately called in my staff and said, what is it that we can do to help. We want to remove all doubt in anyone's mind that we understand the gravity of the situation, that the social compact that the people have with the Federal Government will be one that will be honored and that this will not be part of their problem, the same thing that I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) understood at the time of the Northridge Earthquake in Southern California where the response was one that helped remove doubt as to the fact that we are one Nation and that we are always moving to be a more perfect Union.

That challenge that our Founding Fathers gave us in the Constitution's preamble, to form a more perfect Union, it is the first responsibility listed there, is one that we must remember now, because we are faced with a situation where so many people in the Gulf States, in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and Florida, are affected by this. In other natural disasters, as with our earthquakes in California, certain parts of the community were affected and other parts of the community helped the emergency relief and the recovery. Here we have a situation where we have a total devastation of a region. Who is there to help? All the more reason for us as the Congress of the United States to come together, to give hope to these people, to say to them that we hear your cries.

We hear them and we are told about them, also, from our distinguished Members of Congress from the region. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) lost his home, his only home, and those of many of his staff did as well. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) has been manning an emergency center to help people get help. The list goes on. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) saw his whole city practically get wiped out. But I am sure that everyone on each side of the aisle has stories that they know firsthand. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking Democrat on our Committee on Homeland Security who knows full well what our capability is as a country and what an attack this is of nature and therefore what more we need to do to get this all done. The list goes on. There are many heroes in this.

So when I hear my distinguished colleague for whom I have great esteem, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), say that we cannot have a full debate on this, we will just do it as a Special Order because we have got to get this to the President right away, that would have been a very good argument to have this special session of Congress much earlier this week, because it was clear that although we did not have all of the facts, we knew that people were hurting very badly in our country, that there was a need for additional resources, and it was important to bring the considerable talent on both sides of the aisle together in Washington, DC to make a judgment about the facts and to allocate the resources.

Just a couple of days ago it was thought that there was enough money to cover until next week, until we came back. So what? As it turns out, that was not a correct assessment. But even if it had been, why should we not have been here to give hope, to give inspiration if we are capable of that, but at least to remove all doubt in everyone's mind that this is the first order of business for us and that is to protect our people and try to make them whole in time of a natural disaster.

But we are here, and what we need to do and what we need people to hear is the strongest bipartisan cooperation, whatever the timing, on how we address their needs. Their needs have been referenced in terms of energy. Energy is important, not just at the pump, although let me say about that, pox on those who would price gouge at the pump to our people in our country who are already suffering from debilitating prices at the pump that enable some not to even be able to get to work, and now in this tragic time we do not want matters made worse with price gouging and there will be a price to pay for that. But energy for many reasons. Energy to get product, plywood, whatever it is, to where it is needed, to rebuild in the Gulf States, energy to keep the lights on, too. Such a high percentage of people, there are probably 5 million people, without electricity as we gather here today. Two million homes, 5 million people without electricity as we gather here.

Energy, and I know others will address it more specifically, is a very important part of this, especially since the Gulf States are such an important source of production and transport of energy to the rest of the country.

Our children. Think about the children. Right now they are supposed to be starting school. Instead, they are starting to wonder where their homes are, where their loved ones are, if their parents have jobs and if indeed they even have a school to go to. We have an enormous task ahead of us. Our children will forever be marked by the trauma of this hurricane unless we quickly take them to a place that says, there was a tragedy, people responded, you were considered a priority. Hopefully, they will get through. My own grandchildren who live in Houston and see all these children coming into the Houston area, Mr. Speaker, your area, they are becoming afraid of rain. If it rains, will our house be washed away? Just after 9/11 when kids were saying if a plane goes overhead, should we be afraid of that? We must reassure our children and eliminate the traumatic effect on top of the physical displacement that they are suffering here.

So whatever the allocation of these resources are, I hope it is enough. And if it is not, again with the facts as our friends, we must allocate the resources to make sure these children are in school.

I was telling some of the leaders yesterday in a conference call that when I visited Macedonia and other places in the Balkans, when these children were displaced and they did not have any classroom situation, it compounded the terrible experience that they had until a school situation was created for them. Think of what this is going to mean with people who have been sent to other States. How are those schools going to absorb all of these children even within their own States, but in two different school districts. In the allocation of our resources, I hope that we will have children first in terms of their education, their health.

That takes us to the significant public health issues that we are facing there. Dead bodies floating in the water, some say that is not a danger. I do not know. It sounds dangerous to me. The chemicals that are in the water. There are so many things that we do need the facts on. So it is not a question of speculation. What are the facts? What is the public health challenge that we face? How do we allocate the resources to stop that immediately, because if our children are sick and they see death around them, much

of the rest that we do is not going to seem as relevant.

We know that the list goes on. Shelter, people losing everything. I can tell you from my earthquake experience, and this is a little discouraging, you really are never made whole. The history of your family, the photographs, the sentimental attachment that you may have, some of that is just now to be forgotten. But if we cannot make them whole in the same way, we certainly have to give people hope in a new way that the life that they will lead will be something that not only replaces, but enhances, their experience, because they have been through a lot and in our perfect Union, as we embrace each other as people of America, we have to do so in a way that honors the social compact between the people and the government.

That means all people. It does not mean people who have the wherewithal to get away to a second or third home. It does not mean people who can get helicoptered out, and God bless them for their success in being able to do that. God bless them for taking that route. But it does mean that if people are left behind because of their economic status, then that is wrong. That is wrong and that is not something that this $10 billion should support.

We must, if this is not enough, do more. It is all an investment. It will cause an economic growth in the region as we rebuild, creating jobs, giving hope, bringing people home that I think will more than return to the Treasury what we are putting out there. But right now they need our help and they need it in a very substantial way. They need it for their health, for their housing, for their jobs, the education of their children, for the environment in which they live so that it is healthy and not again a public health hazard. They need to be considered full participants in this great country that we are.

Let me say that there are many heroes in all of this. I named some of our colleagues, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), those whose experiences I know firsthand. The list goes on and on. Again, others will speak from their firsthand experience about it. But the biggest heroes of course are the people who are on the front line all the time working very hard. I would hope that as we did in our earthquake situation, and forgive me for keeping returning to it, but it is an experience that we thought was the most desperate until we saw what we are seeing now, and this goes beyond anything I think that anyone can imagine, that the disaster assistance centers must be established, that people have to know what they have a right to in terms of their emergency assistance and that what people have a right to in terms of recovery, in terms of SBA loans and the rest of that.

There are some things in place that can help people right away if we can get FEMA in place to help them. But again we must remove all doubt that we are there for all people. It cannot be viewed as for those who will receive assistance and those who have not will go by the wayside. This issue of social justice, of economic justice, of the economic life of a city, of a State that rests on the fullest participation of all of its people must respond in the fullest way to all of its people.

I will say once again that I regret we could not have come here sooner with fuller participation of Members who have, again on both sides of the aisle, enormous experience in public health and energy issues and housing issues and education issues and the rest; but let us say that we get this running start now, and I have asked the Speaker that when we come back next week with the full participation of our membership that we establish a hurricane task force that would include the ranking members, the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction relevant to this emergency relief and recovery and that that task force will immediately move forward in an expedited manner and not be slowed down by business as usual, but instead again give hope to these people.

Again, I associate myself with what the gentleman from Wisconsin said. Even 4 years later after 9/11, there are still many things that have not been done, that have been clearly indicated are necessary. We have the resources to do it. It is just a question of priorities. That takes us to what this is about, what our priorities are as a country. How we allocate our resources is a statement of our values. As we leave here today and we go forward in the weeks ahead, we must make sure that everyone understands that a statement of our values is to form a more perfect Union by meeting the needs of our people and not having half a loaf when they are all Americans and entitled to full recovery.

If we can spend $20 billion on reconstruction in Iraq, we can certainly use that as a start on reconstruction in America. I say that with the fullest appreciation for the importance of the reconstruction of Iraq. I respect that that is important to stability there. I respect that it is important to stability here, for us to do that. Again, I wish we were here sooner. We are not. Let us go forward. Let us do it in a bipartisan way. I think the last thing that the American people need to see is any kind of partisan bickering about how we go forward, but nonetheless we have to have a strong commitment to these people.

In the Bible, Isaiah tells us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. Let us make the work that we do here an act of worship to the God who made us and an act of respect for the people who sent us here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this energy bill. The American people need and deserve an energy policy that will reduce energy prices, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce pollution. This bill is not the answer.

While it is an improvement over the House bill, it is not good enough for the American people. Several of the most egregious provisions have been removed, thanks to the tireless work of the Democratic Members who served on the conference committee. And I thank them for their contribution.

We kept the heat on the MTBE give-away and the massive roll-back of the Clean Air Act until they were withdrawn. We fought to protect the Arctic National Refuge, making it too hot for the Republicans to handle--forcing them to withdraw from the energy bill their plan to drill in the pristine wilderness.

Nonetheless, like its predecessors, this energy bill is a missed opportunity. It does not address the issues that the American people care about--lower gas prices at the pump, a healthy environment, safe water to drink, and cleaner air. This bill is still anti-taxpayer, anti-environment, and anti-consumer.

It is anti-taxpayer with billions of dollars in gifts to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries, including a new production tax credit for eight years. There are some subsidies for emerging clean energy technologies, such as renewable energy and hybrid vehicles, but not nearly

enough, especially compared to the give-away for the established energy industries.

Then there is the special gift for the gentleman from Texas, the House Majority Leader. After the gavel went down on the energy bill conference, a provision was included that sets up a special $1.5 billion fund for the oil industry to conduct research on how to find oil, and a leading contender to host the consortium is Sugar Land, Texas. Consortium members, including Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can receive awards from the fund.

There you have it: big oil, Halliburton, and Tom DeLay, all in one neat symbolic package.

At a time when Congress is trying to scrape together enough Federal funding for veterans' health care, Social Security, education, Medicare, and Medicaid, why are we giving away taxpayer money hand over fist to well-established, profitable companies?

Some of these energy companies are not simply profitable. The major oil companies are raking in such enormous profits that they do not know what to do with it all. The top three oil companies (Exxon Mobil, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell) are expected to post a new record profit of $60 billion this year, while this quarter's profits are 40 percent better than last year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is anti-environmental. It authorizes an oil and gas inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf, opening the door to oil and gas drilling in the protected areas off our shores. The House has more than once soundly voted to reject this proposal. Coastal Members from both sides of the aisle know that our beautiful beaches, shores and fisheries are priceless and should not be put at risk. But despite our best efforts, Republicans insisted on keeping the inventory in this bill.

The energy bill carves out exemptions for the oil and gas industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act. It is loaded with provisions that override local and State authority in favor of Federal authority. It gives the Federal Government the right to condemn land to build electric power lines. It gives the Federal Government the right to decide where gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities will be built. It weakens States' rights to protect their own coastlines from oil and gas exploration.

Last but not least, the energy bill is anti-consumer. It fails to protect consumers from high gasoline prices. It fails to adequately protect consumers from price manipulations and future Enrons. And it fails to protect our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Let there be no mistake. This bill is still anti-taxpayer, anti- environment, and anti-consumer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for yielding me this time and for her leadership on issues that relate to the health and well-being of the American people.

I also want to salute the two distinguished ranking members, first the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the Committee on the Judiciary for his leadership on this important legislation; and I especially want to acknowledge the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who this year celebrates his 50th anniversary in Congress, and every day of those 50 years he has worked to improve access to quality health care for all Americans. But particularly on this 40th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, it is worth noting the contributions of the gentleman from Michigan in providing health care security for millions of Americans and for upholding the fundamental principle that Democrats believe in: Health care is a right, not a privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican medical malpractice bill. Let me begin with this simple fact: Under President Bush, 5.2 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the uninsured. Today, 45 million Americans have no health insurance. The bill before us does not, nor does any other Republican bill during this so-called Health Week, provide health insurance to one single American.

This bill is not about solving the urgent health insurance crisis that affects millions of American families, nor is it about improving our health care system, containing costs, or even lowering medical malpractice insurance premiums. Instead, the Republican medical malpractice bill, first and foremost, is a windfall to the big drug companies at the expense of Americans who have been injured or killed by harmful and unsafe drugs. Once again, protecting the big drug companies is at the top of the Republican agenda.

The Republicans have attempted to hide the true purpose and the real reason for this bill. It contains a special liability waiver for drug companies for the types of injuries caused by drugs. Under this Republican bill, when Americans are injured, or even killed, by drugs that have been negligently marketed, they will not be able to obtain justice and hold drug companies wholly accountable.

The Republican leadership, beholden to the pharmaceutical companies, refused to allow amendments that would strike this unjust provision. As with the Medicare prescription drug bill, where Republicans prohibited the government from negotiating for low prices for seniors, and forbade Americans from purchasing lower-priced drugs from Canada, this is yet another example of the Republicans being the handmaidens of the pharmaceutical industry.

The Republican medical malpractice bill is an extreme bill that is an injustice to consumers, and it unconscionably rewards irresponsible drug companies. If we are to remain a Nation that seeks justice for all, the special liability waiver for drug companies must be removed. Unfortunately, the Republicans refused to permit the consideration of the Emanuel-Berry amendment to remove this unjust and reprehensible provision.

Apart from pandering to drug companies, this bill utterly fails to achieve its stated purpose. It will not lower medical malpractice insurance premiums, nor does it address the real cause. The real cause of high malpractice premiums is not the payouts for malpractice claims. Former Missouri State Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff issued a recent study showing the amount collected in premiums by major medical malpractice insurers has doubled. The amount received in premiums has doubled, while the claims paid out have remained flat, resulting in excessive profits and excessive reserve surpluses.

The Angoff study found that insurance companies are charging far more for malpractice insurance than actual payments or estimated future payments warrant. This finding is also supported by numerous studies that document that in States that have enacted caps or damage awards, they have not seen their premiums for malpractice insurance lowered.

Rather than addressing insurance companies' refusal to lower rates, the Republican bill instead interferes with the rights of injured Americans to be compensated for their injuries and have their claims heard by a jury of their peers. If enacted, the cap on damages would severely harm women, children, and the elderly who have been injured. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow the Democratic substitutes by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to be offered.

The Democratic substitute supports sensible approaches that permit only valid claims to go forward. More significantly, the Democratic substitute addresses real causes for premium increases and offers real solutions for the doctors. It repeals the antitrust exemption for insurance companies. It provides targeted assistance to help physicians stay in crisis areas.

We all respect the magnificent contribution that doctors provide to our society. It is not only a profession, it is a vocation, and we literally could not live without them. So it is with great respect for them that I say they deserve better than this bill, which purports to help them.

President Harry Truman said it so well: ``The Democratic party stands for the people. The Republican party stands, and always has stood, for special interests.'' That was true almost 60 years ago when he said it, and it is certainly true today. Let us uphold the public interest. Let us stand up to the big drug and insurance companies, and let us oppose this unjust bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and, more importantly, for his distinguished leadership on many issues concerning America's working families. I know I speak for all our colleagues when I say it is a privilege to call the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) colleague.

I also extend my thanks to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for his very, very substantive review of this CAFTA treaty. It has been an enormous help to Members, and I thank him for his leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It is a small treaty economically, but it has enormous implications for our country. I oppose CAFTA because it is a step backward for workers in Central America and a job killer here at home.

As a Californian, and there are many of us in the Chamber this evening, we all know full well the significance of our close ties to Central America. My own city of San Francisco is blessed with large populations of Central Americans, including those who sought sanctuary from El Salvador and those fleeing decades of civil war in Guatemala. Our fate is tied with our neighbors in the hemisphere.

President John F. Kennedy recognized this in 1961 when he announced the Alliance for Progress calling for ``vast multilateral programs to relieve the continent's poverty and social inequities.'' The Alliance for Progress included both economic cooperation and called for economic reforms as conditions of participation, just as we call for stronger labor and environmental standards today as the reasonable condition for trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that the CAFTA bill we are debating tonight were an agreement that opened markets, included basic labor standards, and protected our environment. This type of agreement would have lifted the economies of both the United States and Central America. It would have attracted support from a large number of Democratic Members who have long histories of supporting free and fair trade, including recent trade agreements with Australia, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, Jordan, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Unfortunately, that is not the type of trade agreement before us tonight.

Instead, we are considering a trade agreement that promotes a race to the bottom, that hurts U.S. workers, that turns back the clock on basic internationally accepted worker protections, and fails to protect the environment. As a result, the Republican leadership is having a hard time convincing its own Members to vote for this bill.

We have heard our colleague earlier, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), talking about twisting arms until they are broken into a thousand pieces. The New York Times today, the gentleman referenced The New York Times, so I will too, said that a White House official said that the last votes are likely to be won with the most expensive deals. We should be able to pass good fair trade agreement treaties on their merits. Instead, the administration is trying to persuade people with side bars, side letters, and side deals. They have never worked in the past. They are just a con. And I hope that our colleagues will not fall for the con.

In their desperation to win votes, the President and the Republican leadership in the House have also proclaimed that CAFTA here tonight will promote U.S. security and democracy in Central America. The truth is if we want to improve our national security and promote democracy there, we should heed the words of Pope Paul VI, who said ``If you want peace, work for justice.''

Trade alone, devoid of basic living and working standards, has not and will not promote security, nor will it lift developing nations out of poverty. Our national security will not be improved by exploiting workers in Central America.

Here at home, this CAFTA threatens U.S. jobs by making it harder for American businesses and farmers to compete with countries that have excessively low wages and deficient working conditions. Mr. Speaker, I repeat: here at home CAFTA threatens U.S. jobs by making it harder for American businesses and farmers to compete with countries that have excessively low wages and deficient working conditions. We have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office. CAFTA does not solve the jobs problem; it only digs the hole deeper.

These downward pressures create a race to the bottom that needlessly threaten U.S. jobs. Nothing in this agreement will help raise substandard wages in Central America or help create a strong middle class that has the disposable income to buy U.S. goods. Democrats understand the need to help our Central American neighbors reap the benefits of increased trade, but the cost of this CAFTA are too high, with too little to justify this agreement's deficiencies.

We must have basic worker protections which ensure that our trading partners abide by the most fundamental standards of common decency and fairness. The CAFTA we are debating today fails to promote these basic measures of decency and fairness and, in fact, takes a step backward from current law because it removes the requirement from these countries to abide by the workers' rights standards of the international labor standards.

When it comes to the environment, Democrats believe that environmental principles must be a central part of the core trade agreement. CAFTA will do absolutely nothing to improve environmental protection in Central America, and it will open up our own environmental laws to attack by foreign corporations.

My colleagues, this CAFTA allows multinational corporations to sue governments, including our own, for compensation if the environmental laws reduce the value of their investment or cut their profits. I repeat: CAFTA allows multinational corporations to sue governments, including our own, for compensation if an environmental law reduces the value of their investment or cuts into their profits.

CAFTA places no value on the environmental health of the Americas. Moreover, the enforcement provisions of this CAFTA are virtually nonexistent. It merely calls for CAFTA countries to enforce their own laws. Enforcement in these areas must be written in to CAFTA if they are to be effective. They are not.

Democrats believe that to keep America in the lead, the Nation must adopt a bold new and sustained commitment to technological innovation and educational excellence. That commitment would ensure that our country remains competitive and vibrant against formidable international competition, generating high-quality jobs throughout the 21st century.

We are committed to addressing challenges of increasing competitive global market. Our economic future rests on our ability to innovate new products and to create new markets for those goods and services. We insist that this administration revisit its flawed trade policy and work with Democrats so that we can pass free trade agreements, including a new improved CAFTA that will expand markets, spur economic growth, protect the environment, and raise living standards in the United States and abroad. That would allow us to move forward with our other priorities.

Mr. Speaker, American families are facing serious challenges: rising health care costs, record gas prices, climbing college costs, and massive job layoffs. They are worried about the direction of our country. Instead of addressing the serious issues that directly affect America's families and coming up with real solutions, Republicans have abused their power and focused on the wrong priorities: pursuing an energy bill that does nothing to lower gas prices or a Social Security privatization plan that weakens the safety net for America's elderly.

Sadly, this trade agreement and the way it has been pursued by the administration has become yet another example of those misplaced priorities and missed opportunities. Again, President Kennedy said in 1961 that the United States and Latin America are ``firm and ancient friends, united by history and experience and by our determination to advance the values of American civilization. We must support all economic integration, which is a genuine step toward larger markets and greater competitive opportunity.'' It was true then; it is an inspiration now.

I urge my colleagues to send this CAFTA back to the drawing board. The administration can negotiate a new CAFTA that will open new markets, include basic labor standards, and protect the environment. Such an agreement would attract strong bipartisan support. This CAFTA does none of the above. It does not protect the environment, it does not grow the economy in our country, it does not lift the living standard in Central America, and it does not have my support. Vote ``no'' on this CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to really a great person, a great leader, a truly decent man, and a dear friend on his retirement after nearly a quarter century of service to the House of Representatives, Mr. George Crawford.

George is a master of policy, politics and procedures of this institution, and he must be one of the kindest people working on Capitol Hill. George has been invaluable to my office as the chief of staff of the leader's office and of this Congress.

George began his distinguished career on the staff of the then Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama. He soon moved to the staff of the great Claude Pepper of Florida, who was chair of the Rules Committee, but, Mr. Speaker, in those days we still called him Senator Pepper.

And George worked with him and quickly revealed his remarkable talents. Again he went with Senator Pepper to the Rules Committee while Senator Pepper was chairman and worked his way up to staff director under the magnificent chairman, Joe Moakley of Massachusetts, who was a colleague to many of us who serve here today.

Today, having traveled a long and impressive arc, he retires as the chief of staff of the Democratic leader's office. I was privileged that George came to work for me nearly 4 years ago,

shortly before I was elected House Democratic whip. George helped to take our staff to the next level, shaping and leading our office.

George loves sports analogies, so let me say that first in the whip's office and then in the leader's office, George recruited the best talent, ran creative plays and always knew how to put points on the board.

In the Democratic leader's office, George has been an innovative leader. He established a structure for reaching out beyond the Beltway; he built the strongest, most innovative Internet operation on the Hill; he has rolled up his sleeves with the policy staff; and he has helped shape our message to the American people. He is a gifted leader who gives staff guidance, but also room to grow. Young people in particular enjoyed working with him. He is both father figure and friend.

Throughout his career, George has largely worked behind the scenes. He is interested in accomplishments, not credit. He is strictly a shirt-and-tie kind of man, except when he is caught escaping to the golf course. And George has a comprehensive understanding of the rules of the House, and a keen sense of the Members. He has tutored so many Members, including me, on the intricacies of parliamentary procedure. He has earned the respect of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle.

For someone who seems to know everything about the House of Representatives, George is a remarkably well-rounded person. He has a wonderful family. He is a loyal Dodgers fan. He loves golf, and he is a maestro with orchids. He is a connoisseur of wines and an expert on vineyards.

Before his career on Capitol Hill, George held an assortment of jobs that reflect his unique spirit, including working as a baker, a short- order cook and a railroad brakeman.

Above all, though, George was and is a Californian at heart. That is why this goodbye is bittersweet for me; bitter because I will miss his unparalleled knowledge as well as his warmth and good humor, sweet because I know he will relish his return to the great Golden State of California. As a Californian for more than 36 years, I completely understand and share his desire to live in this country's most beautiful and most invigorating State.

George and his family, his wife Mel and his two sons, will be moving to the area of Santa Barbara not far from where the movie Sideways, a love letter to wine, was filmed, where he can enjoy the reds and the whites and get back to his golf game that I understand has suffered in recent years due to lack of attention.

He will always spend well-deserved time with his family. Again, I want to take the opportunity to thank George's wonderful wife Mel and his fine two sons, Curt and Casey, for sharing their father with us. It is hard to balance family life with work on Capitol Hill. We all appreciate the sacrifices that the Crawford family has made.

I know that so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in wishing George luck in the next phase of his career, and many happy years with his beloved family in California.

With deep gratitude, respect, and affection, thank you, George, George Crawford, for your 24 years of service to the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I come to the floor of the House to mourn the passing of Greg Gund, who was tragically killed last week in a plane crash. I extend my deepest sympathies to his parents, my dear friends Theo and George, and his brother George.

I remember when Greg was born, how much joy ``Silvo'' brought to his parents. I hope it is a comfort to them that Greg was so loved, and that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

In his short life of 32 years, Greg touched the lives of so many. A curiosity of different cultures and people led him to travel around the world, establishing friendships everywhere he went. His love of travel and adventurous spirit brought Greg to Costa Rica, where he had been living for the past 5 years.

An avid adventurer, Greg loved to snowboard, surf, skydive and fly his plane. Greg spent countless hours over the past five years soaring off the coast of Costa Rica, and even recently completed a solo flight around the world.

``Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.'' Greg embodied this quote from Mahatma Ghandi that he taped to his passport as constant reminder to live life to the fullest. Greg enjoyed more adventures in his 32 years than most will in a lifetime.

Greg will be sorely missed by all of us who were fortunate enough to have him touch our lives. His indomitable spirit will long be remembered and live on in our hearts. My thoughts and prayers, and those of my husband Paul and the entire Pelosi family are with the Gund family at this sad time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I salute her for her extraordinary leadership on issues relating to the national security of our country, her excellent leadership as the ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and her important comments today.

I also salute the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and commend him for being such a guardian of our Constitution. Mr. Chairman, we take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. No one is more committed to that oath than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I thank him for his tremendous leadership.

I join them and each and every one of our colleagues in expressing our admiration for the people of Great Britain for their strength and their courage. Together our two nations will defeat terrorism, and we will do so by pursuing real security measures and by providing law enforcement the tools they need.

Mr. Chairman, as we close debate on this important bill, I want to thank again the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and so many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their thoughtful consideration of this very important matter. I am very impressed by the comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), who has contributed enormously to this debate.

Our first responsibility to the American people is to provide for the common defense, to protect and defend the American people. In doing so, we must also protect and defend the Constitution, as I mentioned. We must pursue real security measures that prevent terrorism. We must make a strong commitment to homeland security. And we cannot, because of any negligence in terms of protecting the American people in terms of homeland security, take it out on their civil liberties.

Our Founding Fathers in their great wisdom understood the balance between security and liberty. They lived at a time when security was all about homeland security. The war was fought on our shores and continued into the War of 1812 here. And so they knew that in order to have a democracy and to have freedom and to have liberty and to ensure it and to protect the people, they had to create that balance.

Today we are considering the extension of certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. I want to add my voice to those who have made it clear to this body that the PATRIOT Act is the law of the land. Ninety percent of it is in the law. About 10 percent of it, 16 provisions, are what we are considering today. They are the provisions that were considered controversial 4 years ago when the bill was passed. And because they were controversial, in a bipartisan way, these provisions were sunsetted. There was a limit to how long they would be in effect. I supported the bill because of these sunset provisions and because of the rigorous oversight that was promised.

We have not seen that oversight. It simply has not happened in an effective way. And today there is an attempt on the part of the Republicans to eliminate the sunset of 14 of the 16 provisions and on the two remaining provisions to have a sunset of 10 years. That is a very, very long day when you are curtailing the liberties of the American people.

I again listened intently to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) when he described in detail the serious constitutional issues concerning section 505, national security letter orders, by which government possesses power to seize citizens' medical and other personal records without notice, without the ability to challenge these orders, and without meaningful time limitations. And for this reason, I will join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) in opposing this legislation but with the hope that it will be improved in conference and then, when it comes back to this body, that we will be able to all support a PATRIOT Act extension that protects the American people, gives law enforcement the tools they need without seriously curtailing the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

I think it is important to note that the bill before us fails to ensure accountability. Again, when Congress voted for this 4 years ago, Members clearly understood that it would be accompanied by strong congressional oversight so that the implementation would not violate our civil liberties. In fact, the Attorney General has admitted that the information on its use of the PATRIOT Act has not been forthcoming to Congress in a timely manner. If not for the sunset provisions, there is no doubt that Congress would not have even received insufficient information we have received to date.

Today we are deciding whether the government will be accountable to the people, to the Congress, and to the courts for the exercise of its power. It is about whether broad surveillance powers that intrude on Americans' privacy rights contain safeguards and actually materially enhance security to target terrorists and those who wish to harm the United States, not needlessly intrude on the constitutional rights of innocent and law-abiding American citizens.

Unfortunately, Republicans refused to permit amendments that would have extended the sunset by 4 years and created sunsets for the national security letter provisions to ensure that these provisions would never be abused. Perhaps they thought that these amendments would have been too appealing to the many Members of this House on the Republican side who are strong supporters of privacy rights for the American people and they did not want these amendments to pass. For whatever reason, the American people are not well served by not having as open a debate with the opportunity for these sunset provisions to be considered. These amendments should have been considered as a minimum part of any effort to improve the PATRIOT Act and this bill.

USA today said in an editorial: ``Congress has an opportunity to . . . ensure'' that these provisions ``remain temporary, the best way to monitor the law's use and keep law enforcement accountable.''

We have a duty to protect the American people from terrorism but also to protect law-abiding citizens from unaccountable and unchallengeable government power over their personal lives, their personal records, and their thoughts. Because I believe this bill fails to meet these objectives, as I said, I will oppose it today with the hope that there will be an improved bill coming from the conference committee.

Again, our Founding Fathers left us with the ever present challenge of finding the balance between security and liberty. It is the story of America. We must honor their legacy in however we vote today. I would hope that even those who support the bill do so in the hope that it will come back a better bill from conference. All Members should honor their oath of office and

carry out their duty to protect and defend our Nation while protecting and defending our Constitution and our civil liberties.

I thank all who have participated in this very important debate and hope that at the end of the day, and I hope it is not a day with a very long sunset, but at the end of the day that we can all get behind a PATRIOT Act extension that does respect the civil liberties of the American people.

Again, I remind my colleagues, the PATRIOT Act is the law. The sunsetted provisions are what are being considered today. The sunsets, by and large, have been removed or extended to such an extent that they do not even matter, and we can do better. We have an obligation to do better for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt support for the House Concurrent Resolution 191 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

We are a free and prosperous nation because the Greatest Generation defeated tyranny in World War II. We owe them many debts, including remembering and teaching new generations of Americans that freedom is not free.

September 2, 2005, will mark the 60th anniversary of the final surrender of Japan, which occurred on the USS Missouri. This is a date we must remember and commemorate.

We remember the 16 million Americans who served in the military during World War II. We remember 670,000 U.S. casualties including 400,000 deaths. The Greatest Generation faced some of our Nation's darkest hours and emerged victorious. We learn from their courage and selflessness. We give thanks for their resolve.

We remember the sacrifices and struggles of the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and members of the Coast Guard in World War II. We remember their families at home who prayed for victory and the safe return of fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and neighbors while making their own sacrifices for the war effort.

We remember those who fought in the Pacific campaigns against the Japanese Empire. We remember sea battles in the Coral Sea, at Midway, in Leyte Gulf--the greatest naval battle in history--and Lingayen Gulf, which turned the tide of the Pacific war and led to ultimate victory.

We remember Iwo Jima, where more than 7,000 Americans and 20,000 Japanese died. We remember a battle that raged for more than a month between February and March 1945, and we remember the powerful image of five marines and one Navy corpsman raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi.

We remember the Battle of Okinawa, the largest sea-air-land battle in history, waged between April and June 1945. We remember the 38,000 Americans wounded, the 12,000 killed or listed as missing, and the more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed and the 100,000 Okinawan civilians who died.

The sacrifice of the Greatest Generation inspires us today. We remember with our words, but must also remember with deeds; by fully

funding and supporting health care for our veterans; by passing and implementing a new GI Bill of Rights, which meets the needs of our soldiers and veterans in the 21st century; by realizing our troops lived with the creed that they would leave no one behind in battle and we must leave no veteran behind in addressing wounds suffered on our behalf.

I am proud to support this resolution to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Let our prayers be filled with thankfulness. Let our words be replete with commemorations. And let our deeds be worthy of the sacrifice of the great Americans who answered the call in our darkest hours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct. I commend the Congresswoman for her extraordinary leadership, for working to protect communities from MTBE and from unfunded mandates that shift of cost of clean-up to communities without the funding to match.

For 5 years, Republicans have pushed policies to give billions of dollars to special interests which then reaped record profits. Republicans are not listening to the American people's concerns about the need for save drinking water, clean air, or for lowering the price at the pump of gasoline.

Instead of siding with the Americans strangled by high gas prices, President Bush's own Department of Energy said that the energy bill would actually raise gas prices, and that the President's proposals would increase our foreign oil dependance by 85 percent.

But nowhere is Republican pandering more on display than in the provisions relating to MTBE. Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, a few drops of MTBE can poison whole drinking water supplies. The industry knew that MTBE would leak from gasoline storage tanks when they lobbied for its use.

They deliberately hid this fact from Congress. The result of their malfeasance is clear: MTBE contaminated groundwater in every single State in America with estimated clean-up costs between $25 and $85 billion.

Incredibly, instead again of siding with communities poisoned by MTBE, House Republicans lined up to protect polluters from liability. Last year, the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) added language to the energy bill to protect MTBE polluters knowing it would kill the legislation and he did the same this year.

The House-passed bill protects MTBE producers form lawsuits. By their actions, House Republicans imposed an unfunded mandate on local communities to protect polluters. This is contrary to a fundamental principle that in our society polluters must pay for the damage they cause, not our children with their health.

The Republicans said to localities, not only will we protect the people who poisoned your water, but we are going to leave you with the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are spending our time debating yet another huge subsidy for profitable oil and gas companies at taxpayer's expense, when we should be focusing on what consumers want, clean water to drink and relief from high prices at the pump.

This is a disgrace. Conferees should insist on the Senate version that excludes this shameful MTBE liability waiver. Only then can we reaffirm our commitment to strengthening community by promoting a clean and healthy environment where polluters pay again for the damage they cause, not our children with their health.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California, (Mrs. Capps) for seizing this opportunity as she did when the House first considered this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct so that we can end this disgraceful giveaway to oil companies and MTBE polluters that poison water all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I know the time is short so I wish to associate myself with the gentleman's magnificent and eloquent remarks about Meyer Cardin.

I knew him when I was a little girl growing up in Baltimore. He was a friend of my father's, as the gentleman has said. What was wonderful about Meyer Cardin was not only the magnificent contribution he made to the community, to the civic life of Baltimore but the joy that he did take in his family. I will never, I will absolutely never forget his coming over here for the gentleman from Maryland's (Mr. Cardin) swearing in time and again, and the pride he took and the youthfulness up into his nineties that he always had.

My condolences as well to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and Myrna and also to Howard. And the pride they take in John running for office, this is not an easy task, although the Cardin name is a legendary one in Maryland. It is with great pride that we look to the service of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) in the House of Representatives, because when I was born, my father served in that same seat. It was configured differently all those many years ago, but nonetheless, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) still represents that part of Baltimore City and beyond.

Again, the Cardin name is legendary, as the gentleman said, for eight decades. A gentle man, a lovely person, a sense of humor, a sense of history, a sense of community, a devoted family person. I hope that it is a comfort to the entire family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time. But what a triumph to live such a respected life, such a fulfilled life well into his nineties.

I think that God has rewarded him with what we all pray for, a long and happy life.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership on this important subject. As a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee, she has been a voice for strong national security in our country, including this initiative today.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the comments of the previous speaker speak eloquently to the need for us to get our fiscal House in order because we are seeing the consequences of going so deeply in debt to other countries where we are really held hostage in terms of our own decision making because they own our debt.

Mr. Chairman, the Chinese National Overseas Oil Company's bid to acquire UNOCAL Corporation is a graphic example of America's energy vulnerability. President Bush should refuse to prove the acquisition and Congress should indicate its disapproval as well.

I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from Michigan's amendment. And again I thank her for her leadership on this issue.

The Chinese bid for UNOCAL is compelling evidence of America's strategic energy vulnerability. China has clearly decided to meet its growing demand by obtaining control of energy assets around the world.

I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), it is true, China will turn to Iran and Sudan and other countries. In fact, they already have. Arrangements have been made in Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and other places that illustrate their strategy. With the UNOCAL bill the Chinese plan reaches our doorstep. The Chinese government's control of CNOOC made the bid possible, not the free market.

My Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues who are all dedicated

to the free market system should understand that this is not a free market transaction. Government-provided low interest loans allow the company to bid at rates not otherwise available. And if acquisition of UNOCAL is critical to the Chinese, they would probably allow the bid to be increased to any level needed to seal the deal.

Control of energy assets by China means China controls where those assets go and when. That raises serious national security concerns for the United States. Among those other serious national security concerns are the transfer of technology associated with the UNOCAL acquisition. It is reported that China could assume ownership of the cavitation technology with applications. Cavitation is a process which UNOCAL uses to go into deep water drilling for oil. That same technology can be used by the Chinese to do nuclear tests underground and to mask them so we would not ever be able to detect them. It would also have applications again for locating matter in deep water.

Given China's commitment to improving its military capabilities, why would the United States permit the sale of this kind of technology? Left on its own, we probably would not. But as part of the UNOCAL deal, it is being pulled through with this Trojan horse.

The reason the Chinese believed a bid for UNOCAL could succeed, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) mentioned in his support, no, his opposition to our position, the reason the Chinese believe a bid for UNOCAL could succeed lies in our dependence on them to finance a significant portion of our massive budget deficit. Our reliance on the Chinese to finance our debt gives them far too much leverage over our decision making process.

I go back, you know, 15 years now, our arguments that expanded trade with China would result in increased freedom for the Chinese people. We were proved wrong long ago. At that time just before Tiananmen Square, our trade deficit with China was $3.5 billion a year. And we thought, with that huge trade deficit that it would give us leverage for improving China's human rights record, for improving their behavior in terms of fair trade and for stopping China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We failed in persuading Congress to do that, and today the trade deficit with China, not $3.5 billion a year, has grown to $3.5 billion a week. $3.5 billion a week. With all that capital China is able to purchase our debt, have leverage over us so that now we have to, hopefully not, but some believe, agree to their buying a strategic asset which UNOCAL represents. Our reliance on China to finance our debt weakens our ability to influence China on human rights, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, North Korea, you name it.

This is the price we pay for failing to live within our means, and it is long past time we recognize that danger and addressed it. On that, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and I agree. Let us heed the wake up call provided by the Chinese bid for UNOCAL. Let us get serious on both issues, reducing risk in energy by adopting an innovative energy policy for the 21st century and getting our fiscal House in order.

And again, I caution our colleagues that a serious transfer of technology that would be contained in this purchase of UNOCAL and urge our colleagues to support the Kilpatrick amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time, and I acknowledge the great leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) as the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee.

I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), every chance I get I want to salute his leadership, his championing the rights of America's families and now today something that should be very clear and obvious, but having to make the point that we should have truth and honesty in our dealings with the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment.

It is ridiculous that we are debating on the floor of the people's House the need for truth. The need for truths is self-evident.

The truth and trust are fundamental to a democracy. We owe every American the truth in our dealings here. All Americans, as I say, deserve the truth. But our veterans deserve it even more. They are willing to make the supreme sacrifice for us. They are courageous, they are patriotic. They have given us the opportunity to have peace on Earth, good will to men over generations, and now they are not being dealt with honestly.

The need for truth is made painfully clear in the current crisis we are facing on veterans health care funding shortfalls. On April 5, Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson said, ``I can assure you the VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide timely quality service.''

Last week, less than 3 months later, Secretary Nicholson and the Bush administration finally acknowledged their failed budgetary policies and misplaced priorities and owned up to the shortfall in veterans funding. In the meantime, the supplemental bill passed the Congress, went to the President's desk without covering that shortfall because of the misrepresentations that were made by the Secretary to the Congress.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. Over the past 2 years, Democrats have stood shoulder to shoulder with veteran service organizations calling for adequate funding for the VA. Time after time, Democrats have put forward proposals to increase funding for our veterans, and time after time Republicans have voted them down. We have had straight party line votes. There have been some moments of clarity and truth from Republicans in this fight.

In February 2004, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi acknowledged the inadequacy of President Bush's FY 2005 budget for the VA. He said, ``I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received.'' It was his professional judgment that that $1.2 billion was needed a year and a half ago for fiscal year 2005 and here we are today still without it. Secretary Principi knew then that the Bush budget was inadequate.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), knew that the Bush budget was inadequate. That is why he joined the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a champion for veterans, in calling for additional funds for the VA.

The result? Not increasing funding for veterans but ousting the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for daring to stand up to the Republican leadership and a new VA Secretary who hides the truth so that he can be in lockstep with the failed budgetary policies and misplaced priorities of this administration.

How can we even face our veterans when we as a Congress say to them, and as a country, including the President, it is more important to us, we place a higher value in giving the people who make over a million dollars a year, $140,000 in tax cuts, but we are not giving you the health benefits that you earned, that you deserve, and that you were promised.

Democrats are united on this issue. Every single Democrat joined me yesterday in writing to President Bush calling for an emergency supplemental to fund veterans health care. This should not be partisan and I hope that later today we will right this wrong. But even if we pass a bill on the floor today, we will go into the Fourth of July weekend without correcting the situation, because it would have to come back after the recess, go into conference, et cetera, pass the Senate with which there is no guarantee.

Our veterans deserve nothing less than our honoring our commitment to them.

Mr. Chairman, in time of war, the military says we will leave no soldier behind on the battlefield. When they come home we must leave no veteran behind when it comes to delivering our promises to them.

Our Founding Fathers, over 200 years ago, declared independence with their wisdom, their enlightenment, their courage, and their willingness to sacrifice, they launched what would become the United States of America, a free and independent country. Our veterans have kept us that way. We honor our Founding Fathers' vision and we honor the sacrifice of our veterans, our men and women in uniform, when we keep our promises to them. We owe them nothing less. I support the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership on this important issue. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) have been such champions for America's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach this 4th of July, we remember the sacrifice, the vision of our Founding Fathers, the courage, the imagination, and the intellect and values they presented in the Declaration of Independence. Since then, our country has always been about shared sacrifice in time of war and in time of peace. That is, up until now.

As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans: You take care of us and we will take care of you. How we repay the service of our veterans speaks volumes about the character of our country. Unfortunately, under Republican leadership, the Congress is failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom with their very lives.

Veterans of this country deserve some answers. Why does the Republican leadership in Congress find billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but does not find enough money for the veterans who risk their lives for our Nation? Why are veterans' affairs initiatives consistently underfunded and shortchanged, forcing thousands of veterans to wait months for health care? Why did the Bush administration suddenly discover a shortfall when we had been talking about this for months? Democrats and veterans organizations have been saying that the VA has been underfunded for more than 2 years now.

The answer is simple: The shortfall is the direct result of the failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Republicans here have either been in denial about the plight of our veterans or it simply has not been a priority for them.

This did not have to happen. Veterans across our country did not have to hear that the government had underfunded their health care. Our veterans did not have to give up only part of their patriotism and bravery in defending our Nation. Let today be the day when we begin to enact a GI Bill of Rights, and we can begin by responding to the call from the Senate.

The reason that we are here this evening, and the effect of the motion that is made to the Committee on Rules on the previous question, would say that if we defeat the previous question, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) would come to the floor and would fund by $1.5 billion the needs for veterans' health care.

Senator Craig said in a unanimous vote that the appropriators in the Senate voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take up the $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House approves such a measure. So a vote ``no'' on the previous question says ``yes'' to bringing up the Edwards resolution, which would immediately send it to the Senate, where they would take it up immediately, pass it, and send it to the President's desk.

Instead, the Republicans are advocating a different position, which is to once again shortchange America's veterans. On a battlefield, Mr. Speaker, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let our pledge be that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. We can support our veterans with a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and a 'yes' on the Edwards resolution, and a ``yes'' for our veterans. That would be the appropriate observation of the 4th of July.

Mr. Speaker, I support the President's call for flying the flag on the 4th of July. Let us fly the flag and fund veterans' benefits.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach this Fourth of July, we remember the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers--the courage, the imagination, the intellect, and the values they presented in the Declaration of Independence. And since then, our country has always been about shared sacrifice--when it came to war, and when it came to peace. That is, up until now.

As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans: ``You have taken care of us, so we will take care of you.'' How we repay the service of our veterans speaks volumes about our national character. Unfortunately under Republican leadership, the Congress is failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom with their very lives.

Veterans in this country deserve some answers. Why does the Republican leadership in Congress find billions in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but does not find enough money for the veterans who risked their lives for our Nation? Why are Veterans Affairs initiatives consistently underfunded, forcing thousands of veterans to wait months for health care? Why did the Bush Administration suddenly discover a shortfall, when Democrats and veterans have been saying that the VA was underfunded for more than 2 years now?

The answer is simple: this shortfall is the direct result of the failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.

This did not have to happen. Veterans across our Nation did not have to hear that their government had under funded their health care; our veterans did not give only part of their patriotism and bravery in defending our Nation.

For more than two years, Democrats and veterans' organizations have stood together, calling for adequate funding.

We have sent letters, we have offered amendments, and we have launched a discharge petition to try to force a vote on additional funding for veterans' health care. We have tried time and time again, only to be rebuffed by the Republicans in Congress every step of the way. Vote after vote failed on the party line.

For our latest attempt, we sent a letter, signed by every single Democrat, to President Bush calling for an emergency supplemental to fund VA health care.

It seems that our voices were finally heard. Democrats have made this too hot for the Republicans to handle.

The truth has come out. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress are finally admitting to what we've been saying for 2 years.

And today we have a chance in taking the first step in righting a wrong. The problem is that once again, the Republicans are a day late and dollar short.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has authorized the Senate to quickly take up a

$1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House passes the same.

The Chairman of the Senate Veteran's Committee has stated, and I quote, ``Clearly there is a disagreement here on the number, but it's clear that we all want to do the right thing for our veterans. We do not want to leave the Department of Veterans Affairs short of funds. Working with our colleagues in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that objective.''

The VA desperately needs this funding. And to get it done today the House must pass $1.5 billion for our veterans.

The ultimate fix would be what veterans and the Ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, Lane Evans, have been calling for. They are correct, the only way to assure funding for VA health care: make it mandatory.

But let us start today by voting no on the previous question, so we can offer an amendment that would increase the amount for veterans to $1.5 billion to match the Senate amount.

Caring for our veterans shouldn't be a partisan issue. It should be our number one priority. Our veterans deserve better.

We must fulfill our sacred obligations to those who have worn this Nation's uniform.

My wish is that today's vote will lead to a renewed bipartisan commitment for our veterans.

Let today be the beginning of a new chapter, let today be the day when this government no longer ignores the promises we've made, and provide the support our veterans have earned and deserve.

Let today be the day when we begin ending the Disabled Veterans' Tax for every single veteran.

Let today be the day when we begin fully ending the Military Families Tax.

Let today be the day when we begin to enact a new GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century.

On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.